You are here

Arraignment for Beacon Street crash postponed; officials still trying to figure out who was driving

Arraignment of a Brighton woman on vehicular-homicide charges for the deaths of two pedestrians was postponed today, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office says in a statement:

The identity of the vehicle operator is the primary focus investigation into Saturday nightâ€™s fatal crash. Because interviews through the past 48 hours have yielded certain conflicting information, police and prosecutors have agreed that the investigation would be best served by postponing any arraignment until further canvassing and evidentiary analysis are complete. Weâ€™ve advised the Campbell and Lanzillotti families of this decision and assured them that every step we take in this probe is with the intention of seeing justice done for them and their loved ones.

Nor should you, despite the fact it seems honest and logical to do so, he has to look out for himself. Also with the draconian justice system in this country it doesn't generally behoove you to admit to anything really.

There is nothing morally wrong driving without a license. When I was 18 my license was suspended because of a ticket I couldn't afford to pay. It doesn't mean I'm a worse driver because the commonwealth decided that somebody that was economically unable to pay a fee shouldn't be able to drive (even to work?),

Yeah, driving isn't a right per our constitution or bill of rights, but I don't really believe in the governments ability to restrict my need to drive based on not paying a fine.

kidding me? There's nothing morally wrong with driving without a license? What was the ticket for that you didn't pay? When you get your license, you agree to abide by the laws regarding operating a vehicle. If it's all optional for you, you shouldn't be near a steering wheel.

You got a ticket for some infraction (which you have yet to disclose). The repercussions of that infraction included a fine. You didn't pay the fine, or otherwise make efforts to pay the fine, the repercussions of which were your license was suspended. You say you drove anyways. So in fact you weren't willing to "take the heat" for your decisions.

There is a guy I am familiar with who was a serious gangbanger from back in the 1980s and 1990s. He did about 10-20 years in prison for various violent crimes. He is currently out of jail, and does not have a license, but owns a car, insures it, and drives around like no one can stop him. He gets pulled over and arrested about once a year, and recently told me that he has received 11 citations for smoking marijuana and has never paid any of them. He has also told me that the only things he pays are his court fees but will not stop driving unless he is put back in jail.

He is actually a very pleasant person now, and has a good sense of humor. I have a feeling that since his record has been pretty clean over the past 15 years (besides his driving stuff), that judges simply may just give him a break.

In the end it is costing him more in court fees than it does for people like you and me who simply pay the bi-yearly license fee. As long as he isn't hurting anyone, I doubt the courts will punish him with anything that serious.

He is currently out of jail, and does not have a license, but owns a car, insures it, and drives around like no one can stop him.

Apparently he's right:

He gets pulled over and arrested about once a year, and recently told me that he has received 11 citations for smoking marijuana and has never paid any of them. He has also told me that the only things he pays are his court fees but will not stop driving unless he is put back in jail.

... that driving on public roads is a privilege not a right. Driving without a license makes you a scofflaw. Your personal opinion that driving without a valid license is okay (if you really need/want to do so) doesn't make it right.

Yeah, I already established that I'm aware that driving is not a right. A lot of things are or have been illegal and aren't morally wrong.

I rank driving with a suspended/no license to be right up there around not putting some quarters in the parking meter.

E: Conversely many things that are legal are universally morally wrong. That isn't really the point. I expect many to disagree with me on this, and that is ok, perhaps even expected. I focus my social energy on being a good person, treating others with dignity, and trying to do more good than bad. It is of little consequence to me whether or not I or others have the proper paperwork to live their lives.

Do you at least make a differentiation between someone who had their license suspended for parking tickets and someone who had it revoked for DUIs? Because the latter is a little more than "paperwork."

I mean, I completely disagree with you but I can see where someone might make a value judgment if they have to get to work and they've been suspended for a clerical or minor offense.

There's a big difference between driving with a suspended license and driving without ever having had a license (i.e., never having passed a driving test), which is what the alleged driver supposedly did.

If you drive without a license (and there are a lot of things that are against the law but not against morals), you probably shouldn't speed or run red lights. And if you don't have a license and have any need to be in Back Bay, take the T, or walk, for god's sake. There's certainly something wrong with speeding, running traffic lights and killing people, morals or not.

And if you can't afford to pay a parking ticket, how can you afford gas, insurance, car payments and the like?

"If you drive without a license (and there are a lot of things that are against the law but not against morals), you probably shouldn't speed or run red lights. And if you don't have a license and have any need to be in Back Bay, take the T, or walk, for god's sake. There's certainly something wrong with speeding, running traffic lights and killing people, morals or not."

I agree

"And if you can't afford to pay a parking ticket, how can you afford gas, insurance, car payments and the like?"

This is silly though. I've had one speeding ticket in 12 years of driving. I was 18 years old with all the appropriate fiscal responsibility that comes with being 18. Also, I couldn't afford the ticket because I was spending money on things like gas, insurance, and food.

My frivolity regarding having a valid license has never prevented me from following the rules of the road.

The person in question, according to reports, never had any license or learner's permit at all. Big difference. Unless you think people are capable of hopping into a car and driving off, with no experience whatsoever. I know I certainly needed those driving lessons.

Life is hard when youâ€™re an criminal and an idiot. A lot of laws are self-filtering and tend to compound and nab the worst out there due to their own negligence and ignorance. The key is to find an implementation that doesnâ€™t nab people it probably shouldnâ€™t and arenâ€™t a big threat to public safety and prosperity.

Deterrence never, ever, ever works. Emotions are not wired as a rational cost / benefit analysis, nor are most people particular long game oriented.

The % of the population that thinks about the consequences of breaking a law before breaking it are nil. Laws are about due process and accountability to the polity. Nothing more.

I am pretty sure, though, that if we had cars in 1787 driving today would be a right not a privilege.

The problem today is that all of the myriad bullshit reasons that you can get your license suspended for (that have nothing to do with safe driving) devalue the importance of having a valid license. If you want to make people take suspended/revoked licenses seriously, then only suspend /take them away for legitimate driver safety issues (DUI, reckless driving) and not use them as a debt collection tool.

The one which most cracks me up is what happens if somebody gets caught evading fares on the MBTA and doesn't pay a fine. They take away the person's driving licence! If they are a minor and don't have one, the RMV has to keep track of the suspension in case they try to get a license some day! Of course, bicyclists are not required to take any test showing they know rules of the road, nor do they suffer any license or insurance penalties when caught demonstrating ignorance. No license suspension for not paying tickets!

Of course, bicyclists are not required to take any test showing they know rules of the road,

Try and remember that many adults are licensed drivers, who are required to take a test to prove they know the rules of the road (although some feign ignorance with regards to certain laws.)

nor do they suffer any license or insurance penalties when caught demonstrating ignorance.

Well, the police would have to start pulling over cyclists and actually ticketing them but they can't even be bothered with ticketing the violators in the big metal boxes that cruise around town. Plus, cyclists tend to cause significantly less damage to individuals and private property when they break the law, cars not so much.

Do you have a solution to this issue? You want to start a massive government bureaucracy to license and register every single bike in the Commonwealth? Who is paying for this? You? What age do we start allowing children to ride their bikes to school and at the park?

Draconian? Really? You don't know much about our legal system or the legal systems in other countries - if you did, you never would have made that statement. Your comment is wrong on so many levels. If Ghuzlan Alghazali had obeyed the law, both victims would still be alive.

some sort of obstruction charge if there's conflicting information? It'd make sense to me just to charge both if they're both providing conflicting information, and let the courts sort it out. It also makes sense to me to use it as an argument against any sort of bail.

I haven't seen anything from either one as to their claims of who was driving. I've seen what police are reporting. I've also seen reporters screw up what they're told as well as police give information to the press that they didn't have correct themselves (and usually had no business divulging).

The one video I saw of someone who claimed to have seen something said that a woman got out of the SUV and seemed to be in shock but okay. I don't recall the video saying which side of the car she got out of or which seat she was in.

how two people who were involved in running a red light and killing two other people, with witnesses, can walk free uncharged until they "figure out" who was driving. In your terribly skewed example, you're bringing a person who was not in the original situation into it. It's not like there's any question as to whether or not both people were in the car, unless I'm missing something. Seems simple:

Scenario A:

Officer: Who was driving?
Either of them: *Tells the truth*
Officer: [Driver], you're under arrest.... Passenger, you're free to go for now.

Scenario B:

Officer: Who was driving?
Either of them: *Anything but a straight answer*
Officer: You're both under arrest for obstruction, false police report, any other applicable crimes; other charges pending.

Bottom line, two people are dead because of the negligence of one of two other people, and both are walking free until the police can get solid information that either person should be able to provide.

Bottom line, two people are dead because of the negligence of one of two other people, and both are walking free until the police can get solid information that either person should be able to provide.

And some scenarios are:

She says He was driving.
He says He was driving.
Some evidence suggests She was driving but is not conclusive.

She says She was driving.
He says He was driving.
Some evidence suggests She was driving but is not conclusive.

In (1), they agree he was driving, but evidence suggests otherwise. The prosecution has to believe it is conclusive enough to satisfy the need to prove their testimony wrong beyond reasonable doubt. In (2), they don't agree because maybe she is being honest and regretful and he is trying to take the blame. Again, if the evidence worries the prosecution that it won't meet reasonable doubt in the face of his testimony on behalf of the defense, then you can't go after her yet.

If you try and fail to prosecute her, double jeopardy will apply. If you try and in the middle you learn it really was him driving, then you've completely damaged your case against him because you introduce your own reasonable doubt that he did it since you went after her in the first place. Get the evidence in place first, then prosecute. There's no need to rush into it since it's a very serious matter and you don't want to get it wrong.

In the meantime, just because two people may know what the truth is, doesn't mean they have ANY legal reason to tell investigators the truth! That's the whole point of the 5th Amendment clause against self-incrimination. The court also said if you're innocent you can still plead the 5th for protection if you worry there's "reasonable cause" (Ohio v Reiner 2001) that what you say might be used against you due to "ambiguous circumstances". Since you want to throw obstruction charges on both of them, they should both be taking the 5th at this point. You can't arrest them for not telling you what they know. They are innocent until proven guilty and they have no requirement to help you prove them guilty.

It is scary how easily people are ready to throw away others' rights just because it's not their rights being thrown away *today*.

Then I guess that opens things up for any 2 people that want to go on a rampage through the city with their car, as long as they can find a way to produce some doubt to who was driving. Maybe they could add a third and play a rousing game of Who's on first?

Other points:

*In scenario 1, If both are saying he was driving, then there is no reason for him to be walking free sans any sort of bail, regardless of evidence. Pretty sure the a key point behind the idea of bail is to attempt to stop anyone from fleeing while a case to support charges is built. Someone ran a red light and killed two people, both people say it is the same person, read him his rights, charge him, set bail, and build your case. Just like any other person, with no rights being violated and thrown away.

*Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you get to walk free. And only one person was driving, so both can't be self-incriminating by admitting who was. And where would the reasonable cause for the innocent person be here if they actually weren't driving? If they know they weren't, there won't be any evidence otherwise. If two people can just plead the 5th to get away with giving conflicting information, something is seriously wrong.

Your assertion about "throwing away rights" is way off base as well. I'm not saying that they should both be rotting away in jail, but should they be walking free with no consequence either if it is 100% known that both were in the car, 1 was the driver and neither is cooperating?

Because you don't know which one is guilty of driving the car that killed two people. Until you are ready to prove it then you don't get to lock either of them up. They have a right to a speedy trial. You don't get to sit on them until you figure out if either of them did the something wrong you suspect either of them of doing. They have a right to not tell you anything more than they want about who did it.

Even if this allows a "shelter to the guilty" this also provides "protection to the innocent". And in our civility, we find the protection for the innocent to outweigh the worries of a guilty person going free a bit longer. At least we used to and still should. The prosecutor will take every step to get justice for US, including the two deceased innocent bystanders. Let them do their job and stop worrying that in the process the guilty have yet to be punished. Punishment comes after we've proven the case.

You could charge them both, citing joint venture or even add a conspiracy charge.

Like a bank robbery where the robbers are masked, and a getaway driver and another passenger are involved, you can charge them all with conspiracy, or joint venture since they all had the same mindset to commit the crime.

Now motor vehicle homicide doesn't require intent, but if you can prove both people were in the vehicle, and that there was no oer possibility of a driver, you might be possible to charge them both.

Happens with OUILs all e time when there are no witnesses to operation, just provable cause that the suspect was driving the car.

... has been the fact that the murder weapon has just been called "a black SUV". Aren't reports usually a bit more specific? Or am I too stuck in "the old days" -- and generic descriptions are now the norm?

Luckily for you, Adam is pretty lenient with trolls -- so I suspect you will be with us until you get bored of your trolling.

Ever heard of "poetic license"? My point (which you chose to derail -- a common troll tactic, I would note) was that it seemed unusal that the car that killed the young couple continued to be described in a vague fashion. I then admitted that, perhaps, I had not been keeping up with the times -- and that more definite descriptions were no longer provided.

Real talk, why is it trolling when I copy and paste definitions of crimes but not when you do it?

I didn't like you calling the car a murder weapon because it implies it was intentional. They don't call it poetic license when you completely change the intonation of a statement, they call it either hyperbole or lying. I don't know you well so I'll assume you were indeed being hyperbolic/utilizing poetic license if you say so.

It's trolling because you are a mentally unstable person who was prohibited from posting in another forum and boston community because no one wanted to deal with your attention seeking trolling and nonsense. during the time you were prohibited, you proceeded to send messages to users of this forum telling them to post messages for you, or weird things to the female posters or other generally creepy, unwelcome comments. you have some weird desire to rile up everyone around you on the internet because of low self esteem or something and it's very creepy. you excuse this by saying it's "trolling" yourself. your first few comments here, when they weren't attempts at posting under my username for attention, were baiting me which is really freaky and uncomfortable.

you need to go away and get mental help because you're looking more and more like the next jonmon.